Phetteplace v. Steere
New York Supreme Court
From the return of the writ of error in this cause, directed to the court of common pleas for the county of Chenango, it. appeared, that the declaration in the court below contained three counts. 1. For money had and received to the plaintiff’s use; 2. For money paid, &e. to the use of the defendant; 3. That Steere, the plaintiff below, having given a bond for 1,250 dollars, to one Maitby Phetteplace, executed a bond for the same sum without interest, to Maitby, as…
Read the full summary
From the return of the writ of error in this cause, directed to the court of common pleas for the county of Chenango, it. appeared, that the declaration in the court below contained three counts. 1. For money had and received to the plaintiff’s use; 2. For money paid, &e. to the use of the defendant; 3. That Steere, the plaintiff below, having given a bond for 1,250 dollars, to one Maitby Phetteplace, executed a bond for the same sum without interest, to Maitby, as collateral security; that to indemnify the piaxntiffinerror, the defendant gave him a counter bond for the same amount, and a…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
delivered the opiniou of the court. This case has been submitted to the court without argument. The only error pointed out is in the third count in the declaration, which alleges, that the plaintiff in error promised to pay damages beyond the surplus money in his hands, arising from the sale of the property of the defendant in error. We are of opinion, that the promise, as to the damages, was without consideration; but that it was good as to the surplus money. On the authority of the case of Steele v. Western Inland Lock Navigation Company,* we intend, that on the trial of the cause, the jury…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McClane v. WhiteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1861
- Harrison v. CassitySupreme Court of Alabama · 1824
- Pritchard's Adm'r v. CulverSuperior Court of Delaware · 1836